Hunting ban likely in July 2006

Hunting with dogs is on course to be banned by the end of July 2006 after Tony Blair bowed to Labour backbench pressure and agreed to curtail a two-year delay which had been proposed by Downing Street.

Alun Michael, the rural affairs minister, will signal the change of heart today when he accepts a backbench amendment to a government resolution which would have delayed the ban by two years once the parliamentary bill passes into law. The amendment, which reduces the two-year delay to 18 months, will be tabled by the passionately anti-hunting MP Tony Banks, and is being signed by Peter Bradley, Mr Michael's ministerial aide.

There were signs last night that anti-hunting Labour MPs, who had demanded that the government drop any delay, will reluctantly support the Banks amendment. This raises the chances of the bill and the amended resolution sailing through the Commons today, allowing the measure to be sent to the Lords tomorrow.

Such a scenario would present peers, who overwhelmingly support hunting, with a dilemma. They will in effect be challenged to support the amendment and preserve hunting until July 2006, or oppose the bill and possibly see hunting banned within three months of the bill being passed in November, by the invocation of the Parliament Act, which allows certain bills to be passed into law if they are blocked by the upper house.

The move to curtail the two-year delay was proposed by Peter Hain, the Commons leader, who warned ministers during last Thursday's cabinet meeting that the Downing Street plan would be voted down by Labour backbenchers. It is understood that the prime minister was highly sceptical of Mr Hain's proposal because Downing Street is determined to neutralise the political fallout of a ban in the run-up to next spring's expected general election.

Mr Hain eventually won round the likes of Mr Banks and David Winnick, another vocal opponent of hunting. He managed to persuade them that although the delay would only be cut to 18 months, it would mean that only one more hunting season could be held.

Mr Blair, who is understood to have taken a lot of persuading, was finally won round after it became clear that the delay would be in place until after the last possible date for the general election, which would be the summer of 2006.

This will allow the prime minister to court core Labour voters, who are dismayed by the Iraq war, with a clear choice: vote Labour and guarantee a hunting ban, or allow the Tories to win and save the sport.

Mr Bradley last night welcomed the change as a reasonable compromise. He said: "It will deliver the manifesto pledge that we have made. It will allow a reasonable transition period to remove any justification hunt supporters may otherwise claim for the wholescale destruction of packs or for taking the kind of action that might hijack the election should it occur next spring."

Mr Banks said: "It is the best we can do under the circumstances. But if the government wants to give the hunts time to phase down, to rehome hounds and take us beyond any last theoretical date for a general election, then this will do it. But I fully expect the government to guarantee that, in the event of the Lords rejecting the amendment, it will not delay the bill or prevent the Parliament Act being used."

Hunt supporters, who planned a mass protest outside parliament today, complained they were being used as a "political football".